Honda Car Forum

Why, you may ask, is he changing the timing belt at 46,000 miles
instead of the nominal 90,000? Well, because it's a '94 Accord,
coming up on its 10th birthday in September. I've come to accept,
reluctantly, that I should get the timing belt changed. Actually, I
don't believer for a minute that the belt is anywhere near failing,
but, you know, the penalty for being wrong about that is pretty
severe, so....

But it's not at all clear what else, if anything, I should do at the
same time. I know the usual advice is to change the water pump, and
the balancer belt, and maybe other things, so you can avoid paying
the labor charge all over again if one of those things fails. But,
you know, at 46,000 miles, I wonder if it might make sense not to do
all those other things.

To me, the question is whether, in the process of failing, those
other things would cause a demonstration of the meaning of the word
"interference", or whether they would just make me pay an extra $200
to replace them. I don't want to risk the former, but would be
willing to risk the latter.

I don't know what all is involved, but if, for example, the water
pump is actually driven by the timing belt, then the only way a
failed water pump would cause an interference disaster is if it
failed by freezing up, in turn causing the timing belt to break. If
it just starts leaking, then that's expensive, but not a disaster.
It seems highly unlikely that a waterpump is going to suddenly fail
by freezing up.

And what about the balancer belt (whatever that is)? Is that the
same situation? And are there tensioner pulleys or other things
involved? At 46,000 miles, I'm really tempted to change just the
timing belt, and leave the other stuff alone. I would appreciate
you guys' insight as to which items that might make sense for.

If it matters, I'll probably have the car another three or four
years, and will probably put 5,000 miles a year on it. The next car
will have a timing chain.

In article <P5UQc.13092$Bb.6273@lakeread08>,
Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But it's not at all clear what else, if anything, I should do at the
> same time. I know the usual advice is to change the water pump, and
> the balancer belt, and maybe other things, so you can avoid paying
> the labor charge all over again if one of those things fails. But,
> you know, at 46,000 miles, I wonder if it might make sense not to do
> all those other things.

To save $30 in parts???????? Are you nuts?

Peabody wrote:
>
> I don't know what all is involved, but if, for example, the water
> pump is actually driven by the timing belt, then the only way a
> failed water pump would cause an interference disaster is if it
> failed by freezing up, in turn causing the timing belt to break. If
> it just starts leaking, then that's expensive, but not a disaster.
> It seems highly unlikely that a waterpump is going to suddenly fail
> by freezing up.

Actually, a common mode of water pump failure is for the shaft bearing to
become loose and develop free play. This free play would in effect loosen
the tension of the timing belt and increase the likelihood of it slipping or
jumping teeth. The end result would be that the mechanical timing is
changed and the engine bends valves. Granted, the above situation is a
worst case scenario but I wouldn't exclude it is a possibility.

Eric

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:02:51 -0500, Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Why, you may ask, is he changing the timing belt at 46,000 miles
>instead of the nominal 90,000? Well, because it's a '94 Accord,
>coming up on its 10th birthday in September. I've come to accept,
>reluctantly, that I should get the timing belt changed. Actually, I
>don't believer for a minute that the belt is anywhere near failing,
>but, you know, the penalty for being wrong about that is pretty
>severe, so....
>
>But it's not at all clear what else, if anything, I should do at the
>same time. I know the usual advice is to change the water pump, and
>the balancer belt, and maybe other things, so you can avoid paying
>the labor charge all over again if one of those things fails. But,
>you know, at 46,000 miles, I wonder if it might make sense not to do
>all those other things.
>
>To me, the question is whether, in the process of failing, those
>other things would cause a demonstration of the meaning of the word
>"interference", or whether they would just make me pay an extra $200
>to replace them. I don't want to risk the former, but would be
>willing to risk the latter.
>
>I don't know what all is involved, but if, for example, the water
>pump is actually driven by the timing belt, then the only way a
>failed water pump would cause an interference disaster is if it
>failed by freezing up, in turn causing the timing belt to break. If
>it just starts leaking, then that's expensive, but not a disaster.
>It seems highly unlikely that a waterpump is going to suddenly fail
>by freezing up.

A Honda water pump can start binding after ~20K miles of using a coolant
with silicates in it - been there, done that.

>And what about the balancer belt (whatever that is)? Is that the
>same situation? And are there tensioner pulleys or other things
>involved? At 46,000 miles, I'm really tempted to change just the
>timing belt, and leave the other stuff alone. I would appreciate
>you guys' insight as to which items that might make sense for.

The balancer belt has had the same temp cycling and flexing duty as the
timing belt - additional cost is so low, it's going to have to come off to
get at the timing belt anyway IIRC, so I can't see why you wouldn't replace
it too. If the balancer belt goes, it can tangle up in the timing belt and
err, break it. The tensioner pulleys should be examined - the adjustment
mechanism can get quite corroded depending on where you live and the
bearing can obviously wear out too... it's a judgement call on them. Same
with end seals on the camshaft, oil pump cover and balance shaft - not sure
if the '94 had the balance shaft seal retainer installed at the factory.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??